Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:51 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: snip Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them? That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their bills on time. Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the enforcement business. That's for governments. Exactly the reason I don't want governments anywhere near an IX. Every network connected to an IX should be allowed to enforce it's own internal policies when connecting with other networks *without* a governmental body trying to enforce certain rules and regulations. One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me. (As you will remember, I was refuting his generalization that private organizations are somehow preferable to public organizations. It has always been my preference to argue with specifics in hand.) I never generalised, I merely pointed out that creating governmental IX's has nog benefits compared to the current IX's. AMS-IX, DE-CIX, LINX, etc. etc are open to everyone wanting to connect, that's public enough for me, without having to be goverment controlled. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:44 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: Erik Haagsman wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts. Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly. How does replacing non-profit organisations (which most public IX'es are) with government bodies and governmental legislation improve anything...? Government _is_ a non-profit organization, with generally broader representation. How does replacing a representative government with a smaller feudal organization improve anything? The current status quo has IX's in the hands of private but open organisations, run by it's members. Replacing govermental organisations by now is purely hypothetical, it's already happened and in most countries outside the US there never were government controlled IX's for IMO very good reasons, with member's freedom to formulate their own policies as number one. Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics. But why government regulated instead of IX member regulated...? Because as much as it's best not to rely on thugs with guns, I really don't want the thugs with guns to be private armies. Ah yes, we want public armies with guns to rely on, just like we rely on them at the moment regulating software patents, ISP and telco data tapping, all those nifty little ideas that make our lives so much better. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
Erik Haagsman wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:51 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the enforcement business. That's for governments. Exactly the reason I don't want governments anywhere near an IX. Every network connected to an IX should be allowed to enforce it's own internal policies when connecting with other networks *without* a governmental body trying to enforce certain rules and regulations. Networks should not be in the enforcement business. They have no guns. IXs should not be in the enforcement business. They have no guns. Even those IXs with MPLA policy have to rely on law and courts for enforcement -- that is, those with guns. I repeat my initial assertion, to wit: This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussi[ng] the terms of the contracts. Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly. When the internal policies -- which in this case are not technical, but rather commercial advantage -- are against public policy, that is the realm of governments. One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me. I'm afraid your head-in-the-sand approach doesn't appear to be working well at this time. Major network partition, affecting thousands of networks and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of actual people, 48 hours and counting. Moreover, I thought it might be worthwhile to check what you might have posted previously, and found that you started posting on NANOG in 2004, during another L(3) partition. Methinks thou doeth protest too much. I'm not entirely sure that you are a shill for L(3), but please explain your personal interest? Especially as a Northern European posting on a North American operator's list? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 07:44 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: snip I repeat my initial assertion, to wit: This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussi[ng] the terms of the contracts. Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly. When the internal policies -- which in this case are not technical, but rather commercial advantage -- are against public policy, that is the realm of governments. So we want to revert to a model where the goverment starts influencing company policy based on what criteria...? Networks are commercial endeavours by default, since they cost money to run and need to generate revenue stay in existence, at least last time I checked. Unless you'd like the entire Internet to be under governmental control I don't see how you'd want a government to enforce any policy. This sounds very much like trying to turn ISP's into semi-public companies, which they're not and IMO shouldn't be. One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me. I'm afraid your head-in-the-sand approach doesn't appear to be working well at this time. Major network partition, affecting thousands of networks and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of actual people, 48 hours and counting. This is definitely a bad thing but not a problem for governments to solve. Bringing the government to the table will create more problems than solve them. Moreover, I thought it might be worthwhile to check what you might have posted previously, and found that you started posting on NANOG in 2004, during another L(3) partition. Glad you take an interest. Methinks thou doeth protest too much. Perhaps, but I'd like companies and market forces to solve these problems, not governments. ISP's are free to choose (multiple) upstreams they wish for, people are free to choose whichever ISP they want, and SLA's and contracts *should* be there to protect people from stupidity like this Cogent/L(3) pissing contest. I'm not entirely sure that you are a shill for L(3), but please explain your personal interest? Especially as a Northern European posting on a North American operator's list? I never knew I was Swedish, but thanks for telling me. We've got L(3) as one of our transits, so I do take an interest. Most of my larger upstreams are fully or partly NA based and we send quite a bit of traffic to these parts so I *thought* I'd follow the list and pitch in when I felt like doing so. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: J. Oquendo wrote: Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it sounds both like a nightmare and a dream. /snip This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts. Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly. How does replacing non-profit organisations (which most public IX'es are) with government bodies and governmental legislation improve anything...? Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics. But why government regulated instead of IX member regulated...? -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
Erik Haagsman wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts. Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly. How does replacing non-profit organisations (which most public IX'es are) with government bodies and governmental legislation improve anything...? Government _is_ a non-profit organization, with generally broader representation. How does replacing a representative government with a smaller feudal organization improve anything? Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics. But why government regulated instead of IX member regulated...? Because as much as it's best not to rely on thugs with guns, I really don't want the thugs with guns to be private armies. How do you expect to enforce your member regulations? Again (to keep this on-topic), this partitioning is exactly what we predicted. And I don't see your member regulations having any effect. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
William Allen Simpson wrote: How do you expect to enforce your member regulations? Again (to keep this on-topic), this partitioning is exactly what we predicted. And I don't see your member regulations having any effect. Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/ Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them? And how quickly would you expect this resolution? Compare and contrast with the well-respected Packet Clearing House: http://www.pch.net/ -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:56 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote: Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it sounds both like a nightmare and a dream. Congratulations, you've reinvented the Internet. This is exactly what we did when we built the original (NSFnet). It worked! I would argue the NSFnet would not scale to today's Internet. Not to mention today's Internet has the added value of not sucking up 90% of NSF's budget. We specified regional interconnection. If you wanted to connect, that's where you had to connect, and you were required to take the traffic from everybody else at the point of interconnection. No arguments. This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when discussion the terms of the contracts. I'm wondering why this partitioning - predicted or not - is a bad thing? Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly. Strangely, the Internet has not tended toward monopoly. If you think otherwise, you have been reading too many press releases. Idiot laissez-faire pseudo-libertarians forget that all markets require regulation and politics. Politics are a natural part of human interaction. Regulation sometimes follows. The Internet is fairly unregulated. It works fairly well - better than many regulated industries. I guess I'm missing your point? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Allen Simpson) [Thu 06 Oct 2005, 19:10 CEST]: Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/ Useful page, isn't it? Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them? That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their bills on time. -- Niels. -- Calling religion a drug is an insult to drugs everywhere. Religion is more like the placebo of the masses. -- MeFi user boaz
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Allen Simpson) [Thu 06 Oct 2005, 19:10 CEST]: Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/ Useful page, isn't it? I wish that all IXs had one. Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them? That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their bills on time. Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the enforcement business. That's for governments. (As you will remember, I was refuting his generalization that private organizations are somehow preferable to public organizations. It has always been my preference to argue with specifics in hand.) -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote: Following up on my own post, according to http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/ Useful page, isn't it? I wish that all IXs had one. I wish everyones was as complete as LINX's: https://www.linx.net/www_public/our_members/peering_matrix/ http://green.linx.net/cgi-bin/peering_matrix2.cgi -Hank
